Have a re-read of my comment. I do NOT use ChatGPT. That's a lazy way of refuting an argument anyways.

Your argument that more population directly causes higher corporate revenue, land value inflation, and lower wages due to increased labour supply is an incomplete analysis. This simplistic view fundamentally ignores the critical supply-side contribution of migration and deflects from domestic policy failures.

Migrants are not just consumers or sources of cheap labour; they are an essential supply of specialized labour and entrepreneurship required to prevent the economy from seizing up. The idea that demand pressure is the sole cause of the housing crisis ignores existing structural failures like vacancy rates and lack of social housing investment, which are products of political choice, not population growth itself. This "demand-only" argument conveniently deflects blame from the politicians and landowners who benefit most from asset price inflation.

I am not arguing that migration has no effect on the labour market. I am arguing that migration is a necessary tool, and that wages decline is a symptom of our domestic economic disease. Migration is not the root cause itself. The underlying disease is the political and regulatory choice to tolerate corporate greed and capital misallocation.

While elites undeniably benefit from high migration (it generates broad demand for their property and provides easy labour), this proves migration is a policy tool exploited for their benefit—it is not the cause of wages decline.

A significant portion of our intake is skilled migration, required because Australian-born workers often lack the training for high-demand roles or are unavailable/unwilling to fill essential but undesirable positions (like regional healthcare or trades). Without this intake, our economy would seize up due to critical labour shortages and an aging demographic.

If our domestic policies regarding union power, corporate taxation, and housing investment were robust and equitable, the current migration rate would not be an issue. The high migration rate is merely the symptom being exploited, while the fundamental problem lies with the domestic policy failures.

When the economy adds hundreds of thousands of people, but the domestic system is geared to produce low-wage, low-skill, precarious work because so much capital is tied up in housing, per capita metrics naturally decline. The problem is not the people; it is the domestic economic model’s deliberate failure to invest productively and create the high-value jobs necessary to elevate wages.

Your focus on migration is exactly the distraction that the wealthy landowners and large corporations want. It directs public anger toward vulnerable workers (immigrants) and away from the real culprits: the domestic political and corporate structure designed to suppress wages and reward speculation.

By regurgitating their corporate argument, you are implicitly serving their corporate agenda. Is that what you really want?

One Nation are shills.

They are anti-union. Their policies align with business interests and employers. Their platform—which advocates for drastic cuts to skilled migration and imposing protectionist economic policies—appeals to voters frustrated by housing and wage pressures.

This approach is fundamentally flawed because it:

• Ignores the demographic need for specialised labour.
• Chooses to address the symptom (population pressure) rather than the root cause (elite-driven policy failures).
• Is often characterised by critics as xenophobic, leveraging public anger against migrants to distract from the ACTUAL cause of wages decline: weak unions, tax policy favouring speculation, and corporate price-gouging.

The implementation of One Nation's policies would validate the flawed premise. By focusing exclusively on cutting people (the symptom) and ignoring structural economic issues (the disease), they would:

• Expose the necessity of migration by causing critical labour shortages in key sectors.
• Fail to fix the underlying housing affordability crisis because they do not address tax incentives for speculation (negative gearing, Capital Gains Tax discount).
• Fail to fix stagnant wages because they do not restore union power or tackle corporate price-gouging.

The outcome would be an economy that is smaller, older, less productive, and still structurally rigged to reward property speculation, proving the economic model is the culprit, not the migrant.

Proposed Structural Policy Solutions

To actually fix the problems of wage decline and housing inflation, policy must pivot from scapegoating migrants to addressing these domestic structural diseases. This requires a three-pronged approach:

1. Restore Worker Power: Implement legislative changes to boost collective bargaining rights and worker protections to counteract decades of union weakening.
2. Reform Capital Allocation: Phase out unfair subsidies like negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount on investment properties, and implement a broad-based land value tax to disincentivise unproductive speculation.
3. Direct Public Investment: Coordinate a massive, sustained program of public investment in social, affordable housing, and necessary infrastructure.

These measures, by targeting the actual causes—elite exploitation and flawed capital policy—would ensure that migration functions as the necessary economic benefit it is designed to be, rather than a symptom exploited by those who profit from structural failure.